grounds and new parks there is always an additional maintenance cost that has to be borne by our pbm. it's always good to have a plan around that. thank you. >> thank you. i also want to thank the parks alliance and of course the friend group to raise the funds to make this possible. that is something we are all very appreciative of. so, given that we've taken public comment, do we have a motion to send this item forward with recommend? tion >> so moved. >> we have that motion and we'll do that without objection. item 2. >> item number 2, resolution authorizing the department of the status of women to retroactively accept and expend an extension grant in the amount of $650,000 through the united states department of justice's office of violence against women, encourage arrest policies and enforcement of protection orders program, for grant period april 1, 2012 through march 31, 2014. >> thank you very much for this item. we have emilie from the department of status of women. >> good morning, supervisor chu. good morning, supervisor kim. i'm joined today by tara

anderson, grant [speaker not understood] from the district attorney and [speaker not understood] from our department. i just wanted to share with you the commission just finished three community meetings with our partners in the violence against women prevention and intervention grants program. these are direct service providers who work on a daily basis with the domestic violence victim. we held the community meeting at [speaker not understood]. we held some at the department for all of our agencies and at cameron house. and the themes that we heard over and over again were language barriers continue to persist when victim of domestic violence want to report a crime or follow-up on a crime, that cultural barriers exist, particularly among those immigrants where in their home countries law enforcement can be corrupt. so, they don't have the trust that's needed in order to report domestic violence and family violence. so, i'm very pleased today to

report on a very strong and deep collaboration between our department, the district attorney's office, asian women shelter and casa of the women. we've been awarded a $650,000 grant over two years to really look at high-risk populations, limited english proficiency and/or lgbt groups. because we really see gaps in their ability to access the criminal justice system on domestic violence. and i'm going to ask tara to give you some details on how this extends and expands on existing work. >> great, thank you. so, there are four program components under this grant award. one is centralizing prosecution which builds off of the work of the limited english proficiency subunit within the district attorney's office, to prosecute perpetrators in cases where the victim is limited english proficient. this unit will serve as liaison for the identification of victim who are considered to be

at high risk of [speaker not understood] in relationships. the second area is training when iction the district attorney's office to ensure that prosecutors and victim advocates can work with victims who are considered to be at high risk of legislatality in relationships. * lethality training in the office is a third component to make sure not only within the district attorney's office, but our other law enforcement partners and the community based organizations that we're working with are all trained in lethality assessment. and developing and implementing a validated risk and danger assessment tool which actually is one of the core recommendations that came out of the safety and accountability audit. so, one kind of technical area that i know that you'll be interested in is how this is constituted as a continuation award. so, in 2009 the city was awarded under the same grant category to encourage arrest policies, and that was awarded to the san francisco district attorney's office.

the original applicant at the time was the mayor's office of criminal justice. in the 2012 fiscal award announcement where we have applied to tailor our grant awards specifically to follow the assessment, it was indicated that a law enforcement entity could not be the lead applicant. our communication with the mayor's office and the department of status of women appeared most appropriate for them to be lead applicants. so, you'll see within the materials that the grant award is extending beyond our march date, which was actually when we completed our close out package with the federal government. when we completed our close out, the district attorney's office used our general funds to support the staffing positions that were no longer funded through the grant at that time. we have current requisitions at our business that we utilize to hire new positions in to support those grants. i'm happy to answer any questions about the details associated with this being a

continuation award or any questions that you may have about the grant. >> thank you. so, this grant as we now see it is coming through as a resolution. so, you're not proposing to add any new positions, you're using existing staff? >> that's correct. >> and it doesn't require [inaudible]? >> no, it's not. >> thank you. supervisor kim? >> i just had a quick question. so, i know that one of the targeted population, of course, are women that maybe have limited english proficiency and so are not able to communicate and also a variety of different cultural barriers. i'm also wondering how this impacts men that might be in similar situations that are also in abusive relationships or violent relationships. >> so, these services would be available to them as well. the victim service advocate. and also our district attorney, assistant district attorney is assigned to this unit, contact each victim after a case comes before our office to the police department.

it's identified what their language of choice is to communicate. and then either through our own resources within victim services, we do have languages. in those areas where an individual isn't able to -- within our staff to communicate with that victim, we access the language line. * wide array of languages >> i appreciate that. it's something i've learned from the lgbt community as well. i was curious about that. thank you. >> thank you. with this item there is no budget analyst report. why don't we open up this item for public comment. are there any members of the public who wish to speak on item 2? seeing none, public comment is closed. do we have a motion to send this item forward? >> so moved. >> we have a motion to send this item forward with recommendation and we can do that without objection. item 3. >> item number 3, resolution authorizing the department of the environment to retroactively accept and expend a grant in the amount of $250,000 from the sidney e. frank foundation to plan and implement specific projects to source 100% of san francisco's electrical demand from renewable energy sources from july 15, 2012, through june 15, 2013.

>> thank you very much. >> supervisors, guillermo [speaker not understood] with the department of environment. the department encourages the committee to approve and recommend the accept and expend grant from the sidney e. frank foundation for $250,000. the grant will enable the department of the environment to continue developing plans for san francisco to be 100% of its electricity demand from renewable energy qu sources. * meet currently the city-wide profile is 41% renewable. the department will draw upon recommendations contained in a recently completed mayor's renewable energy task force report. among the supported programs will be initiatives to expand in city renewables, primarily solar systems, advance regulatory changes to accelerate implementation of renewable projects, encourage

community-based systems, and promote energy efficiency in san francisco. other strategies we will use include stakeholder consultations, working in partnership with pg&e and sfpuc to implement new programs that would ease access to renewables, push some state advocacy efforts, development of new renewable energy financing mechanisms for customers in san francisco, and a continue our education and outreach. these efforts are vital for san francisco to continue to achieve its climate and sustainability goals. i thank you for your consideration and i'm happy, along with my colleague adam stern to address any questions the committee may have. >> thank you. and just to clarify, this also would not require any additional hires, correct? >> correct. no additional hires. >> thank you. so, why don't we open this item for public comment since there is no report on this item. are there members of the public who wish to speak on item

number 3? seeing none, public comment is closed. we have a motion to send this item forward with recommendations. >> so moved. >> we'll do that without objection. item 4. >> item number 4, resolution authorizing the department of emergency management to retroactively accept and expend a fy 2012 homeland security grant program grant in the amount of $667,670 from the united states department of homeland security, through the california emergency management agency, for building and sustaining preparedness capabilities for the period of october 12, 2012, through may 31, 2014. >> thank you. for this item we have [speaker not understood]. >> good morning, supervisors, [speaker not understood] with department of emergency management. this item is a grant for $667,000 from the department of homeland security. unlike other grants i brought before you this is a small grant just for san francisco. it will fund planning

operations, equipment training and exercises for several city departments including the police department, sheriff's department, fire department. it fund equipment at rec and park as well as training in hazardous materials for staff at the department of public health. there are no new positions that are created under this grant. there are no matching funds that are required. the legislation is retroactive because we received the notice that the grant is has been awarded to us the same day the performance period began which was october 12. and we request your approval of this resolution. happy to answer any questions that you may have. >> thank you so much. this one does not have a report either, so we'll open this item up for public comment. are there members of the public who wish to speak on item 4? [speaker not understood] again. again, i call your attention to the received and assigned part of this item. if there had been a persona

tadv to this and a phone number, i went to emergency management yesterday and i was sheriff's department guard, they had their hands on the trigger. i asked them about this. they didn't know at the building on turk street. so, my question is are these one of the items -- and i hope you'll write these questions down. is this one of these things where the homeland security gives our local police departments military-like weapons and all kinds of advance technology weapons? * that's the first question. and the second question is what are the requirements of the san francisco has to take to agree with this? of course i'm with the 911 truth movement as opposed to 911 liars movement. and i just want to know if this part of the militarization of the local police department and what are the requirements. and was this the same person

who came before this committee and got $21 million grant just a few weeks ago? i think ever since 911 happened -- because i have a little quiet and not talking, please, on the side there. sir? i'm trying to concentrate, please. chair, could you ask the man over there to -- >> if you continue -- i can't think when someone else is talking. again, we have 401 san francisco city staffers earning over $200,000 a year and they won't let someone talk. so, i hope you'll answer these questions about the militarization and i wish some of this money could go to muni because every day in san francisco is like an emergency now. we're in a constant state of emergency and muni needs some of this money. thank you. >> thank you. are there other members of the public who wish to speak on

item number 4? seeing none, public comment is closed. and just to answer quickly on the question that was raised, most of the money that does come in in particular for this grant that is documented in the paperwork is really going towards the planning and making sure that our city is in compliance and we actually are working together. the money goes to various different departments to be able to do planning efforts and complete different strategies around how we respond to emergencies. so, really this is part of a larger effort to make sure that all of our first responders, but also our departments and also our citizens are engaged and know how to respond when there is an emergency that occurs. thank you. so, we have heard public comment on this item. do we have a motion? >> so moved. >> okay, we have a motion to send this item forward with recommendation and we can do that without objection. thank you. item 5. >> item number 5, resolution approving the issuance of a tax exempt obligation by the abag finance authority for nonprofit corporations in an aggregate principal amount not to exceed $32,000,000 to finance and refinance various capital facilities owned by san francisco friends school.

>> thank you. for this item we have anthony abizon. >> good morning, members of the budget analyst committee. my name is anthony [speaker not understood] with the controller's office of public finance. the item before you approves the issuance of $32 million to finance and refinance capital improvements at san francisco friends school. there is no fiscal impact to the city and the city is not responsible for repayment. the resolution adopting the resolution would allow the financing to proceed on a tax exempt basis. and in the audience is bond counsel and members, representatives from the school if you have any project specific questions. >> thank you. just a quick question. this item does not have any fiscal impact for the city. so, therefore, there's no budget analyst report for that, there is no general fund impact. but generally these still have to receive approval by the board of supervisors in order to be issued.

so, i'm just wondering, in terms of tax exempt obligations that are available for these other organizations that are not the city, is there sort of an upper limit to how much we can actually issue? we've seen a number of these that have come through. generally we've approved it because there is not a fiscal impact and it is allowing another entity to benefit from the tax exempt status. is there an upper limit to how much of these tax exempt obligations can be let out? >> there is no upper limit at the local city level. i don't believe there is an upper limit on the federal level either. it's a transaction that is between the borrower and the lender. and, so, as you mentioned, the resolution merely approves the financing to proceed on a tax exempt basis. >> okay. so, there's no kind of limit to the number or the amount of tax exempt bonds that are let out i guess in the general market. that's just a general question. if you don't have the answer, if you can find out that would be great. >> sure. and again the resolution is for not to exceed 32 million for

this project. >> right. will the san francisco friends of school, do you think that you might be able to come up and speak briefly to what this would go towards? just for the benefit of the public. >> thank you, supervisor kim. my name is paul galvin. i'm the director of finance and operations for san francisco friends school. in november 2007, the city and abag approved $24 million in a credit enhanced variable rate bond financing to fund a renovation of the school's campus, which is the former levi straus factory at 250 valencia street. the project enabled the school to pursue its growth plans of adding grades 6 through 8 * . and it added classrooms, labs,

library, visual and performing arts space, athletics facilities, and an outdoor play space. we are asking a recommendation and approval for refinancing these series 2007 bonds. additional bond proceeds would find new capital improvements to the school's facilities and pay for the cost associated with terminating its existing interest rate schwab related to the 2007 bonds. >> okay. there's no analyst report with this item so why don't we open this for public comment. are there members of the public who wish to speak on item number 5? come on up. thank you. of course, i hate to be against the friends, but legally i'm studying law, the first year of law. isn't there separation of church and state?

shouldn't the city not -- i think this is san francisco friends from the quakers. i have to say, generally i'm against nonprofits because even though you're a nonprofit, you still compete for buildings and then you throw out tenants. so, i would ask, has san francisco city attorney looked into this, the city's aligning with a religion, should they distance themselves on that grounds? >> thank you. are there other members of the public who wish to speak on this item, item number 5? seeing none, public comment is closed. do we have a motion? >> so moved. >> we have a motion to send this item forward with recommendation and we can do that without objection. thank you. item 6. >> item number 6, resolution establishing the appropriations limit for fy 2012-2013 pursuant to california constitution article xiii b. >> thank you very much for this item from the controller's office. we have [speaker not understood]. >> thank you, members of the committee.

neil levinson, [speaker not understood] from the controller's office. i'll be very brief and happy to answer questions. this resolution before you is required by the california constitution and government code. each year the city needs to confirm its appropriations limit under the gan provisions. in this calculation we have done, it reflects through calculations allowed by the state code that we have a 3.77% local income growth and an 0.4% -- 0.47% population growth and this allows for combined growth in the gam limit from the amount that you established last year of 2.53 billion to a new level of 2.63 billion for fiscal year 12-13. under the allowable calculations, we have shown that the budget for appropriations that are covered by this is at currently 2.47

billion, so this reflects a level still 168 million below the gam limit. if the city were to collect so much revenue that it was above the gam limit, the law would require us to either change the rates to return or some other way return that excess revenue to tax payers or go to voters to ask voters to approve an increase in the limit, but we have not reached that point yet. a couple of other points you might be interested in, we did look back at fiscal year 11-12 with the initial budget we expected to be well over 200 million below the gam limit, but 11-12 was a year of very strong revenue growth above our budget. but still, we still den end the year well within the limit, at least $70 million below the budget in 11-12. also looking forward even with our strong revenues, our preliminary forecast shows that we should still be within the limit and this would be 13-14 by over $100 million, under our current growth assumptions, probably over 150 million.

it will be something that as we work with the mayor's office mayor's office from the five-year plan, we will keep monitoring this in the future to make sure we inform you as soon as possible if the city looks like it's bumping up against this state limit. i'm happy to answer the questions. >> there are no questions from the committee at this time. why don't we go to the budget analyst report. >> good morning, chair chu and supervisor kim. [speaker not understood] budget legislative analyst office. as mr. levinson said controller 2 options for calculating the gam limit can either be calculated on the california -- pertain to capital income in california or the percentage change in the local assessment of new nonresidential construction. it's based on controller's calculations, the limit is 2.6 billion for fiscal year 2012-2013 even if they chose the alternative calculation, it would still have been 2.5 billion. in either case it exceeds the

estimated tax code [speaker not understood] * and we recommend approval. >> thank you very much. why don't we open this item up for public comment. are there members of the public who wish to speak on item number 6? seeing none, public comment is closed. can we move this item with recommendation? >> so moved. >> okay, we'll do that without objection. thank you. item 7, please. >> item number 7, resolution approving the 2012 grant application for the united states department of housing and urban development continuum of care program and fulfilling the san francisco board of supervisors review and approval process for all annual or otherwise recurring grants of $5,000,000 or more. >> thank you very much. >> good morning, [speaker not understood], supervisor chu, supervisor kim. i'm here representing the local homeless board and i also have staff from human service agency [speaker not understood]. and we are bringing to your

attention the proposed resolution approval for the upcoming 2012 continuum of care fund and p obligation we're doing for hud. we've been doing this since 2008 because we're required to bring the resolution to you since then. as you know, the san francisco local homeless coordinating board which is the san francisco obligation for the [speaker not understood] housing and urban development continuing care grants homeless assistance. in 2011 computation had awarded san francisco over $19,74 3,333 -- 34 dollars in competitive continuous care homeless assistance grants. actually the first in the country last year. in 2012 the proposed resolution would [speaker not understood] to apply for $23,572,2 80 including an estimated $99 3,9

10 devoted to new permanent housing for currently homeless people [speaker not understood]. we call touch-tone bond project which we've been doing everywhere. [speaker not understood] provide homeless individuals [speaker not understood]. and you have in your package attached the list of all the organizations that are going for renewal. as you know, we undertake intense community process for determining priorities and the competition process each year. for this year's competition, there will be a [speaker not understood] discussed at our funding committee meeting [speaker not understood]. the funding committee considered community priorities and decided [speaker not understood] materials for the local homeless for approval. as part of the review process, the human service agency and the local homeless will review applicants to score the applications according to our community process.

we also had a panel of nonconflicting people that score the applications for new projects. [speaker not understood] delivery to applicants any project that is at risk of not being funded will have the opportunity to appeal. we just want to bring the resolution and hope that the full board will approve it before december. >> thank you very much for your presentation. >> thank you. >> thank you. for the human services agency, is there anything that you would add to the presentation? thank you. okay. this item i believe does not have a budget analyst report. since this is a grant application and does not yet have a fiscal impact. so, why don't we open this up for public comment. are there any members of the public who wish to speak on item number 7? seeing none, public comment is closed. >> so moved. >> okay, we have a motion to send the item forward with recommendation, we can do that without objection. okay. item 8, please. >> item number 8, resolution adopting findings under the california environmental

quality act, c-e-q-a guidelines, and san francisco administrative code chapter 31, including the adoption of a mitigation monitoring and reporting program, related to the funding of project no. cuw 26403, the geary road bridge project, in alameda county and directing the clerk of the board of supervisors to notify the controller of this action. >> [speaker not understood]. >> [speaker not understood]. the item before you today is to adopt the c-e-q-a findings for the geary bridge project. it is located in snow california and crosses over all immediate a creek within the snow regional wilderness area. the purpose of the project is to replace an existing wooden bridge with a new concrete and steel bridge that can accommodate vehicular and pedestrian traffic. the existing bridge was constructed in the 1930s and refurbished in the 1960s. the maximum loading capacity is limited to 8 tons and this

restricts fire, maintenance, and cattle transport vehicles from accessing the bridge. these vehicles must use a nearby low water creek crossing to access facilities within the watershed and can only do so when water levels allow. we have been working with various agencies to eliminate low water creek crossings within our watershed and this is one of them. the main purpose of the project is to construct a new bridge that can accommodate up to 63 ton loading, eliminate the need for vehicles to cross through alameda creek and thereby enhancing the conditions of alameda creek and allow year round access and decrease long term maintenance costs associated with the wooden bridge. a mitigated negative declaration was prepared according to the citi qua guidelines and found no significant impacts associated with the project. the planning department and sfuc commission adopted the mid gated negative declaration as well as the mitigation

monitoring and reporting programs in september of 2012. instruction is expected to start in march of 2013 and complete in february 2014. * construction the construction estimate is about $3.7 million and funding is available in the water enterprise capital improvement program. the board of supervisors adopt the c-e-q-a findings for this project. thank you, and i'd be happy to answer any questions. >> thank you very much for your presentation, brian. for this item i i believe we do not have a budget analyst report on it. so i'd like to open this up for public comment. are there members of the public who wish to speak on item number 8? seeing none, public comment is closed. do we have a motion? >> so moved. >> we have a motion to send the item forward with recommendation and we'll do that without objection. thank you. thank you. item 9, please. >> item number 9, resolution approving the issuance of wastewater revenue bonds to be issued by the public utilities commission of the city and county of san francisco in aggregate principal amounts not to exceed $250,000,000 to refund outstanding wastewater revenue bonds pursuant to the charter of the city and california government code sections 53580 et seq., and not to exceed $420,000,000 to finance capital projects

benefiting the wastewater enterprise pursuant to amendments to the charter of the city and county of san francisco enacted by voters on november 5, 2002, as proposition e; affirming covenants contained in the indenture pursuant to which the wastewater revenue bonds are issued; authorizing the taking of appropriate actions in connection therewith; and related matters. >> thank you very much for this item. we have charles from the puc. >> good afternoon, supervisors. my name is charles pearl, i'm the deputy chief officer for the san francisco public utilities commission. i have a few slides to show with you. so, we could switch those now. thanks. you've heard a lot of bond items come before you related to our water enterprise and this item is for our wastewater enterprise. we have two series of bonds that we're proposing, the 2013 a and b series. the first one is a